Market Structure of Urban Waste Treatment and Disposal: Empirical Evidence from the Italian Industry
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Background
2.2. Data Gathering and Research Questions
2.3. Concentration Measures
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Díaz, A.M.P.; Zafra-Gómez, J.L.; Perez-Lopez, G.; López-Hernández, A.M. Alternative management structures for municipal waste collection services: The influence of economic and political factors. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1967–1976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Di Foggia, G.; Beccarello, M. Improving efficiency in the MSW collection and disposal service combining price cap and yardstick regulation: The Italian case. Waste Manag. 2018, 79, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alzamora, B.; Barros, R.T.D.V. Review of municipal waste management charging methods in different countries. Waste Manag. 2020, 115, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobo, S.; Dominguez-Ramos, A.; Irabien, A. From linear to circular integrated waste management systems: A review of methodological approaches. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 135, 279–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaza, S.; Yao, L.; Bhada-Tata, P.; Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-1-4648-1347-4. [Google Scholar]
- Castillo-Giménez, J.; Montañés, A.; Picazo-Tadeo, A.J. Performance in the treatment of municipal waste: Are European Union member states so different? Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 687, 1305–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaman, A.U. A comprehensive study of the environmental and economic benefits of resource recovery from global waste management systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 124, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gharfalkar, M.; Court, R.; Campbell, C.; Ali, Z.; Hillier, G. Analysis of waste hierarchy in the European waste directive 2008/98/EC. Waste Manag. 2015, 39, 305–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pires, A.; Martinho, G.; Chang, N.-B. Solid waste management in European countries: A review of systems analysis techniques. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 1033–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues, A.; Fernandes, M.; Rodrigues, M.; Bortoluzzi, S.; Gouvea da Costa, S.E.; Pinheiro de Lima, E. Developing criteria for performance assessment in municipal solid waste management. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 748–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartolacci, F.; Del Gobbo, R.; Paolini, A.; Soverchia, M. Efficiency in waste management companies: A proposal to assess scale economies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 148, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benito-López, B.; Moreno-Enguix, M.D.R.; Solana-Ibañez, J. Determinants of efficiency in the provision of municipal street-cleaning and refuse collection services. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1099–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marques, R.C.; Simões, P.; Pinto, F.S. Tariff regulation in the waste sector: An unavoidable future. Waste Manag. 2018, 78, 292–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonioli, B.; Massarutto, A. The municipal waste management sector in Europe: Shifting boundaries between public service and the market. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2012, 83, 505–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FiedZiuk, N. Putting services of general economic interest up for tender: Reflections on applicable EU rules. Common Mark. Law Rev. 2013, 50, 87–114. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplow, L. Why (ever) define markets? Harv. Law Rev. 2010, 124, 437–517. [Google Scholar]
- De Loecker, J.; Eeckhout, J.; Unger, G. The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications. Q. J. Econ. 2020, 135, 561–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Massarutto, A. Municipal waste management as a local utility: Options for competition in an environmentally-regulated industry. Util. Policy 2007, 15, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joskow, P.L. Regulation of natural monopoly. In Handbook of Low and Ecoonomics; Polinsky, A.M., Shavell, S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007; Volume 2, pp. 1227–1348. ISBN 1574-0730. [Google Scholar]
- Brezina, I.; Pekar, J.; Cickova, Z.; Reiff, M. Herfindahl–Hirschman index level of concentration values modification and analysis of their change. Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 24, 49–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavić, I.; Galetic, F.; Piplica, D. Similarities and Differences between the CR and HHI as an Indicator of Market Concentration and Market Power. Br. J. Econ. Manag. Trade 2016, 13, 23193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Foggia, G.; Beccarello, M. Designing waste management systems to meet circular economy goals: The Italian case. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 1074–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplow, L. Market definition, market power. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 2015, 43, 148–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Benkovskis, K.; Wörz, J. What drives the market share changes? Price versus non-price factors. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 2018, 45, 9–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guerrini, A.; Carvalho, P.; Romano, G.; Marques, R.C.; Leardini, C. Assessing efficiency drivers in municipal solid waste collection services through a non-parametric method. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 431–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basso, L.J.; Figueroa, N.; Vásquez, J. Monopoly regulation under asymmetric information: Prices versus quantities. RAND J. Econ. 2017, 48, 557–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Packalen, M.; Sen, A. Static and dynamic merger effects: A market share based empirical analysis. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 2013, 36, 12–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gradus, R.; Schoute, M.; Dijkgraaf, E. The effects of market concentration on costs of local public services: Empirical evidence from Dutch waste collection. Local Gov. Stud. 2016, 44, 86–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bryant, G. Creating a level playing field? The concentration and centralisation of emissions in the European Union Emissions Trading System. Energy Policy 2016, 99, 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Economopoulou, M.A.; Economopoulou, A.A.; Economopoulos, A.P. A methodology for optimal MSW management, with an application in the waste transportation of Attica Region, Greece. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 2177–2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scharff, H. Landfill reduction experience in The Netherlands. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 2218–2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, Z.; Wang, W.; Zhou, A.; Huang, W.-C. Charging for municipal solid waste disposal in Beijing. Waste Manag. 2019, 94, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fujii, M.; Dou, Y.; Sun, L.; Ohnishi, S.; Maki, S.; Dong, H.; Dong, L.; Chandran, R. Contribution to a low-carbon society from improving exergy of waste-to-energy system by upgrading utilization of waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 586–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, S.-Y.; Du, M.A.; Huang, I.-T.; Liu, I.-H.; Chang, E.-E.; Chiang, P.-C. Strategies on implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy system: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Foggia, G. Energy-Efficient Products and Competitiveness in the Manufacturing Sector. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Glanz, H. Identifying potential NIMBY and YIMBY effects in general land use planning and zoning. Appl. Geogr. 2018, 99, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, R.J.; Scicchitano, M.J. Don’t Call Me NIMBY: Public Attitudes Toward Solid Waste Facilities. Environ. Behav. 2012, 44, 410–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Scope | Unit | Variable | Obs | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Regional | % | waste treated by each operator | 148 | 13.52 | 19.395 | 0.029 | 100 |
National | % | waste treated by each operator | 148 | 0.68 | 1.393 | 0.001 | 11.56 |
Landfill | % | Waste managed by each operator on total | 112 | 0.89 | 1.476 | 0.002 | 11.242 |
WTE | % | Waste managed by each operator on total | 36 | 2.78 | 4.929 | 0.072 | 23.865 |
Regional | Tons | Unsorted waste | 148 | 862,141 | 661,151 | 31,605 | 2,233,494 |
National | Tons | Unsorted waste | 148 | 12,453,364 | |||
National | Tons | Waste managed by operator | 148 | 84,144 | 173,455 | 127 | 1,439,570 |
Landfill | Tons | Total waste landfilled | 112 | 6,421,195 | |||
WTE | Tons | Total waste treated | 36 | 6,032,169 |
Variable | Obs | Mean | Std. Dev. | Minimum | Maximum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 20 | 55 | 23.00 | 21.23 | 100 |
C2 | 19.00 | 71.59 | 19.26 | 40.86 | 100 |
C3 | 18.00 | 81.06 | 14.11 | 55.90 | 100 |
C4 | 17.00 | 87.69 | 10.72 | 67.20 | 100 |
HHI | 20.00 | 4161.75 | 2462.32 | 1531.00 | 10,000 |
Population (m) | 20 | 3.0125 | 2.54 | 0.13 | 10.10 |
Waste per capita | 20 | 495.735 | 74.77 | 365.40 | 664.10 |
Cost per capita | 20 | 177.606 | 31.25 | 136.60 | 253.73 |
Cost per ton (€) | 20 | 36.255 | 6.44 | 26.440 | 47.91 |
Waste tons | 20 | 1503.94 | 1271.80 | 75.820 | 4843.57 |
Sorted waste (%) | 20 | 60.651 | 10.52 | 38.520 | 74.70 |
Region | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | HHI | Options |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abruzzo | 37.532 | 58.640 | 76.051 | 84.969 | 2350 | WTE-L |
Aosta | 100.000 | 10,000 | L | |||
Apulia | 40.311 | 63.004 | 75.951 | 86.342 | 2494 | WTE-L |
Basilicata | 28.994 | 50.217 | 65.148 | 77.051 | 1857 | WTE-L |
Calabria | 90.252 | 99.101 | 99.888 | 100.000 | 8224 | WTE-L |
Campania | 90.988 | 98.484 | 100.000 | na | 8337 | WTE-L |
Emilia-Romagnia | 69.090 | 86.113 | 93.625 | 97.006 | 5136 | WTE-L |
Friuli V G | 74.007 | 100.000 | 6153 | WTE-L | ||
Lazio | 49.660 | 78.070 | 93.625 | 100.000 | 3556 | WTE-L |
Liguria | 48.359 | 69.080 | 84.587 | 93.860 | 3132 | WTE-L |
Lombardy | 66.454 | 72.529 | 75.930 | 79.108 | 4522 | WTE-L |
Marche | 21.229 | 40.861 | 60.171 | 76.621 | 1705 | WTE-L |
Molise | 41.771 | 78.970 | 91.422 | 100.000 | 3357 | WTE-L |
Piedmont | 58.216 | 70.206 | 76.469 | 81.696 | 3659 | WTE-L |
Sardinia | 38.618 | 57.944 | 72.656 | 84.172 | 2338 | WTE-L |
Sicily | 45.641 | 64.739 | 81.957 | 88.014 | 2819 | L |
Trentino A A | 75.262 | 99.341 | 99.647 | 99.929 | 6244 | WTE-L |
Tuscany | 29.631 | 48.003 | 64.201 | 74.678 | 1711 | WTE-L |
Umbria | 58.424 | 81.133 | 91.829 | 100.000 | 4110 | WTE-L |
Veneto | 28.822 | 43.692 | 55.904 | 67.199 | 1531 | WTE-L |
Cost | C1 | HHI | Population | Waste per Capita | tons_tt | Sorted Waste (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost per ton (€) | 1 | ||||||
C1 | −0.054 | 1 | |||||
HHI | 0.014 | 0.976 * | 1 | ||||
Population | −0.124 | 0.048 | −0.067 | 1.000 | |||
Waste per capita | −0.147 | 0.145 | 0.120 | 0.123 | 1.000 | ||
Waste ton | −0.150 | 0.028 | −0.091 | 0.984 * | 0.260 | 1 | |
Sorted waste (%) | −0.103 | 0.015 | −0.008 | 0.023 | 0.437 * | 0.082 | 1 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Di Foggia, G.; Beccarello, M. Market Structure of Urban Waste Treatment and Disposal: Empirical Evidence from the Italian Industry. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7412. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137412
Di Foggia G, Beccarello M. Market Structure of Urban Waste Treatment and Disposal: Empirical Evidence from the Italian Industry. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7412. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137412
Chicago/Turabian StyleDi Foggia, Giacomo, and Massimo Beccarello. 2021. "Market Structure of Urban Waste Treatment and Disposal: Empirical Evidence from the Italian Industry" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7412. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137412